subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Checkpointing v1 design -- terminology
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 13:20:13 GMT
Julian Foad wrote:
> [...] To achieve such rollbacks, the user would have to first revert, which 
> involves deciding what to revert.
> 
> And that seems OK to me.

The larger point is that this kind of work flow, and the difficulty of 
working with changes in overlapping subtrees, is analogous to some 
existing techniques. For example, if one tries to use two different 
branches to manage two different change-sets, and work with them both in 
one WC by switching part of the WC to one branch and another part to 
another branch, and the changes involve overlapping subdirectories, 
maybe like this...

  svn switch "^/branches/#1" A/B
  svn switch "^/branches/#2" A/B/F A/D
  svn switch "^/branches/#1"       A/D/G

... it seems to me that more or less the same issues arise.

Looking more specifically at one of the details, we note that 'svn 
switch URL PATH' recursively overrides the current URL on PATH and all 
its descendents (hence having to write the above example as three 
steps), whereas 'svn update' doesn't, and we have yet to define whether 
the proposed 'restore' command would do one or the other or something 
different. But if it's broadly analogous it seems reasonable.

- Julian

Mime
View raw message